An injunction against animal rights protesters could not be altered to increase the restriction on their protest without a disproportionate interference with the protesters’ rights under Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention.

The fact that evidence before the Special Immigration Appeals Commission might have been procured by torture inflicted by foreign officials without the complicity of the British authorities was relevant to the weight of the evidence but not to its admissibility. It should only exclude evidence if it concluded on the balance of probabilities that it had been obtained by torture.

Article 5 of Schedule 1 of the HRA 1998 was displaced by a Security Council Resolution so that detention without charge of the claimant with dual British and Iraqi nationality was not unlawful and the refusal to return him to the UK was neither unlawful nor unreasonable.

Guidance from the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) on the factors the Home Office should take into account when deciding asylum applications and appeals based on political activities here in the UK

Monthly mass cycle rides, starting from the same meeting point at the same time each month but following a different route on each occasion, did not constitute processions that were commonly or customarily held for the purposes of the Public Order Act 1986 s.11.

The restrictions imposed upon individuals subject to non-derogating control orders made under the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 amounted to a deprivation of their liberty in breach of Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights 1950. The control orders were in fact derogating control orders which the Secretary of State had no power to make and should be quashed.

The police acted lawfully in preventing coach passengers reaching the site of a demonstration at which a breach of the peace was likely, but acted unlawfully in escorting the coaches back to London without stopping when other action could have been taken with less impact on the passengers' rights to freedom of action.

Ken Livingstone, the mayor of London, had not been acting in his official capacity when he made certain "intemperate" remarks to a Jewish journalist. The restraint imposed upon him by the code of conduct of the Greater London Authority therefore amounted to a disproportionate infringement of his free speech under Article 10.

A blanket policy of retention and use by the police of DNA samples and fingerprint evidence after a suspect had been cleared of the offence that gave rise to the collection of such evidence was compatible with the Human Rights Act 1998

All the applicant's complaints about the status and composition International Criminal Tribunal rejected for non-exhaustion of local remedies since he could have pursued these claims in the Netherlands courts

Reports made by the US to the UK relating to the treatment of a suspected terrorist should not be included in a judgment. In the balance between the public interest in national security against the public interest in open justice as safeguarding the rule of law, free speech and democratic accountability, security and the interest in shared intelligence arrangements with the US should prevail.

The common law offence of causing a public nuisance did not offend Article 7 of the Convention and the interference with the defendants' rights under Article 8 and 10 was both justified and proportionate.

The convention of mutual confidentiality between intelligence services was not absolute so that a summary of reports made by the US to the UK relating to the detention and treatment of a suspected terrorist should be included in a judgment

The freedom of association guaranteed by Article 11 could not deprive the authorities of a State the right to protect its institutions from the anti-democratic activities of an association which jeopardised those institutions

Deportation measures with regard to an individual suspected of conspiracy to commit terrorist acts could not be carried out if there was a risk that he would face treatment contrary to Article 3 in the receiving state.

It was a breach of the Convention right to a fair trial to hold someone under a non-derogating control order without sufficient information about the allegations against him even where the case against the "controlee" was based on closed materials, the disclosure of which would compromise the country’s national security.

Where publicity following the grant of anti-social behaviour orders was intended to inform, reassure, assist in enforcing the orders and deter others, it was a justifiable and proportionate interference with the subjects' rights to privacy under Article 8

Byelaws of the Atomic Weapons Establishment, which prohibited camping in certain “Controlled Areas", violated the rights of peace protesters to freedom of expression and association under Article 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights

There is no right to consultation either under Article 6 or 8 for a person in respect of whom a local authority is considering making an application to the magistrates' court for an anti-social behaviour order